Ali Hasan bin Ali bin Abdul-Hameed al-Halabi is from Jordan. He first came to the UK in 1993. He was lauded as a student of the Imaam, the Muhaddith Muhammad Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah). Though young in age, he became known for sitting in the sessions of Shaikh Al-Albaanee in Jordan during the later years of the life of the Shaikh.

He was a very close companion of Saleem al-Hilaalee and Muhammad Moosa Nasr. In fact all three visited the UK in 1995 - and then their collective and individual visits became more and more regular.

After 1995 they started making regular visits to the USA, Canada, Europe and the Far East. Indeed they became famous due to their visitations of these various locations. One could venture as far as to say that in those times they were more well-known in the West than they were in the Middle-East, wallaahu a'lam.

In the early days whilst Shaikh Al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) was alive, they were cautious about their stances towards ahlul-bid'ah and the hizbiyyeen. They would warn against them in general and in sittings with the du'aat (in the UK), they would clearly warn against the likes of the Kuwaiti group known as Ihyaa Turaath al-Islaamee and the followers of Muhammad Suroor. Indeed they would also warn against the likes of Safar al-Hawaalee, Salmaan al-Awdah and the other Qutubees. ALL of this of course in line with the crystal clear manhaj of Shaikh Al-Albaanee.

So the Salafis in general would speak good of them due to this and defend them upon this - believing that they were carrying the aqeedah and manhaj of the Muhaddith and Imaam, Shaikh Al-Albaanee.

However, as time went by, we noticed some contradictions between what they were calling to in public and what they would say in private gatherings and insinuations they would make in lectures. They would make disparaging remarks towards other well-known scholars. They would try and restrict the da'wah around them. They would disregard the refutations of the scholars if they opposed their close companions. So we found them defending the likes of Adnaan al-Ar'oor and Muhammad al-Maghraawee.

In 1999, only a few months before the death of Shaikh Al-Albaanee - Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabi and Saleem al-Hilaalee enforced and imposed upon the Salafi du'aat in the UK a contract containing a command to refer all religious and manhaj affairs/disputes back to Ali Hasan and Saleem al-Hilaalee to the exclusion of the Scholars.

Many of the brothers still remember how Saleem al-Hilaalee and Abul-Hasan gloated at the Salafis, proud to have overpowered them with threats and bullying. Alhamdulillaah, most of the Salafi students of knowledge rejected the contract and either refused to sign or did not bother turning up to the signing. This resulted in several years whereby these very same Jordanians (who had now departed from the teachings of Shaikh Al-Albaanee) warned against the Salafi du'aat who stuck to the scholars in Riyaadh, Madeenah and the South (Saamitah). Wherever they would travel in the West, they would now warn against good Salafi students of knowledge, in Canada, in the USA, in France and across Europe. They tried to raise themselves up as the vanguards of the Salafi da'wah whereas in reality they defended the people of desires, promoted the manhaj of tamyee' and watering down of the clear Salafi principles.

The issue came to a head during the fitnah of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabi (a few years later) when these individuals took to following their desires in opposition to the evidences (when the evidences were brought to them, they refused to accept them) - they waged a campaign against many of the scholars of the Sunnah, such as Shaikh Rabee', Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee, Shaikh Zaid al-Madkhalee and Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee. All this after the death of Shaikh al-Albaanee.

They started making more and more apparent their disdain for the Scholars of Saudi such as Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and Shaikh Rabee'. They would openly defend those who the scholars warned against such as al-Maghraawee, Ar'oor, Muhammad al-Hassaan, Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabi. They would not defend these deviants upon knowledge, but upon desires - they would reject clear-cut evidences presented by the likes of Shaikh Rabee' and Shaikh Ubaid al-Jaabiree. Their counter-argument would never go beyond, "there is no consensus of the scholars in their jarh of al-Ma'rabi"(!!) or "Shaikh so-and-so still has not refuted him" or "Shaikh Rabee' is not a hujjah" (!!) etc. So thousands of Salafis in the West realised the games they were playing and so kept their distance from them.

They would raise themselves to a position where they regarded themselves as equals to the likes of Shaikh Rabee', Shaikh Muqbil and Shaikh Ahmad an- Najmee. So much so that many of the youth in the West would regard Ali Hasan and Saleem al-Hilaalee to contemporaries of Shaikh Rabee' bin Haadee! The reality is that they are not equal or contemporaries of Shaikh Rabee' - not in 'ilm and not in age.

Then the Shaytaan led them to the very same Jam'iyyah they used to warn against: Jam'iyyah Ihyaa Turaath of Kuwait! They started working with them and taking their wealth!

After all this they split amongst themselves, Saleem al-Hilaalee (freed himself and) split from Ali al-Halabi and the others, and their followers likewise split amongst themselves.

So now the scholars warn openly against the innovations of Ali Hasan al-Halabi. Shaikh Ahmad bin Umar Baazmool (hafidhahullaah) compiled a 804 page book in refutation of the deviations of Ali Hasan, called: "Siyaanatus-Salafee min Waswasati wa Talbisaat Ali al-Halabi" - This book is an amazing compilation. So get a copy O Salafi, and remain upon clarity.

The post above is an important read for those who have been exposed to the da'wah of Ali Hasan al-Halabi and the societies associated with him. We say this because, in Canada, the fitnah of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq came and went without having much effect, the fitnah of Adnan Arıoor came and went without confusing ahlus-sunnah, Abu Muslimah came and went yet the salafees were firm in sticking to the ıUlamaa during this fitnah, Abul-Hasan al-Maribee came with compound innovation eclipsing the trickery of both Aroor and Abdul-Khaaliq, the salafees didnıt budge, sticking to major scholars.

However, when Ali Hasan al-Halabi's affair began to get exposed by ahlul-ilm, many made mistakes due to hastiness, emotionalism and a false sense of balance and justice due to their youth, lack of understanding, over-estimation of their own level (of knowledge) or a combination of all these mistakes. A few sinister individuals took of the banner of halabiyyah and used a double-edged sword, on one edge the confusing new principles of al-Halabi, on the other edge; they were relentless in belittling the scholars, putting down the masjid/da'wah centre and those affiliated with it and through both these plots, slowly turned some of the youth away from goodness. So on one hand Shaykh Rabee' or Shaykh Ubayd were not infallable, the duıaat in the west were all Jaahil, they claimed there was 'no love/brotherhoodı with the salafees (lies perhaps to pray on those who had personal disputes and exploit them) and on the other hand, Shaykh Ali was a momentous scholar who one couldnıt possibly avoid, it might seem excessive but their propaganda took place over a period of a few years and became palatable to many over time (lending their ears over and over to lies and slander). So the fitnah of al-Halabi had a more penetrating effect on the unity of ahlus-sunnah than any fitnah we witnessed before in our land. Statements such as:

"Shaykh Rabeeı is not infalable? (i.e. mixing truth with falsehood - using a statement of truth to reject a valid refutation from a scholar)", "Where is the ijmaa (false principles)", "What about the manhaj and legacy of al-Albaanee (as if many of the major scholars of today did not study from al-Albaanee)"

These principles and others began to circulate and unfortunately, many drank the kool-aid (rhetoric) that was being served and opened up the door just a crack to potentially sitting with al-Halabi with complete disregard for the environment and influences they may be exposing themselves to, sitting in the centres of the hizbbiyyoon! So for those who weren't convinced, al-Halabi's supporters said: "We take the knowledge from wherever it comes" - and many went to his talks from 06-08, and we did not see them attend these lessons and mix in these environments (with people who hate the salafee manhaj and revile some of the scholars) except that they were left bewildered and confused, for some a decade's worth of daıwah salafiyyah seemed to have almost evaported under new innovated principles such as:

"Jarh wat-ta'deel is finished (i.e. that there is no dispargement of individuals)" "We correct but we do not refute" "When a jarh (criticism of a scholar) and a ta'deel (praise of a scholar) occurs, we don't take a position, we remain silent (i.e. no one can really be spoken against if one can find a praise somewhere, anywhere!)"

Some even said "I donıt know what salafiyyah is any more, those who I used to consider hizbees, I don't see the problem with them?"

All this could have been avoided by sticking to safety, sticking to the statements of the scholars in times of fitnah, being cautious not emotional, had the guidance of the scholars been given preference, you would not only have been safe from harm and confusion but you may have learnıt just how much the supporters of Halabi were exaggerating his status to the point he was considered a "borderline-scholar" and the primary inheritor to Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah).

And these socities and centres that hosted al-Halabi, where did they go after '08? They began to openly work with, lecture at and call to centres that promote the ikhwaanee manhaj (in-line with the evolving halabi stances), so their affair became abundantly clear and many backed off at this point but how many may have been lost due to this haste? We ask Allaah for safety.

"...Ahmad Baazmool is an 'aalim who studied Hadeeth, 'Aqeedah, and Fiqh under the scholars, well-grounded in knowledge, a doctor in the university. Had he not refuted 'Alee al-Halabee, I would have done so myself. However, he has sufficed me..."

This is in light of claims that Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool has preceded the scholars with his open refutations and warnings against 'Alee al-Halabee.